say, with as much arrogance and as much truth, as it was ever said by Charles or James, ’as long as we have the power of making what judges and bishops we please, we are sure to have no law nor gospel but what shall please us.’"[1] Again, "our author forgets, that he who makes bishops and judges, may have what gospel and law he pleases; and lie who makes admirals and generals, may command their fleets and armies."[2] The president makes judges and generals. This power awakened and put in motion the evil qualities of Charles and James; the effects of the cause in these eases, and indeed in a thousand others, prove that the cause will produce evil effects.
So certain and inevitable was this, that Mr. Adams sitates it as not requiring proof. He considers it as sufficient barely to bring to our recollection, that he who appoints judges, has what law he pleases; and that he who appoints commanders, determines the conduct of fleets and armies.
Is this compatible with our maxim in relation to legislative, executive and judicial power? is it compatible with the system of a division of power? in short, is it compatible with the principle of self government? Such an accumulation of power, is as strictly the attribute of monarchy, as it is obviously the bane of self government. Weak and vicious presidents will play the small arms of judicial and military power upon individuals and factions ; but an enterprising and ambitious president, will play the artillery of both upon the nation.
"He who appoints the judges may have what law he pleases." Wherefore then elect a legislature? The right of suffrage and the efficacy of election, are destroyed or hazarded by an executive power to make law through judges. Innumerable instances nught be collected, to prove that judicial power is an instrument with which law can be made; in England, the judges made a law for docking
